evidence_group_evidence_download_url_create

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds 'temporary' (expiring URL) and 'after upload' workflow, but does not detail expiration duration or response format. This is useful but not rich behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. The requirement chain is compact and useful without being verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, 3 UUID parameters, and good annotations, the description is adequate. It states the output (download URL), the use case, and prerequisites. It lacks expiration details or error conditions, but these are not essential for basic invocation with strong schema support.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter includes provenance guidance (e.g., 'Obtain from evidence_case_file_create'). The description restates the required chain but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it creates a temporary download URL for an evidence file in a group, distinguishing it from similar tools like evidence_download_url_create. The verb and resource are specific, and the parenthetical '(INTERNAL custody)' adds differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: use it to retrieve original bytes after upload, and it lists the required ID chain (caseFileId + evidenceGroupId + evidence_group_evidence_register → evidenceId). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies when to use it versus non-group downloads.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.